David E. Harris

The applicant, a young Black man, brought a Charter application to exclude a loaded handgun found in his satchel during a search incident to an investigative detention in an apartment.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable grounds for the search, concluding that one officer's testimony about the applicant attempting to conceal the satchel was untruthful.

The court permitted cross-examination of the officer on prior judicial findings of untruthfulness and concluded that racial profiling played a substantial role in the police conduct.

Finding a serious breach of section 8 of the Charter, the court excluded the firearm under section 24(2).

The applicants, arrested in a large-scale police investigation, brought an abuse of process motion seeking a stay of proceedings due to systemic delays in holding their special bail hearings.

They argued that their section 11(e) Charter rights were violated, similar to the applicants in a previous case where a stay was granted.

The court found that while the applicants' rights were violated by the delays, the systemic problem in the jurisdiction had been largely rectified following the previous decision.

As the ongoing systemic delay had been addressed, a stay of proceedings was no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the justice system.

The application was dismissed, though the court noted the Charter violations could warrant a sentence reduction if the applicants are convicted.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit expert evidence and the defence brought applications regarding jury selection, editing a co-accused's statement, and admitting third-party suspect evidence in a first-degree murder trial.

The court ruled that the accused, an Indo-Caribbean man, could ask the standard Parks question during jury selection.

The court admitted the Crown's expert evidence on bloodstain pattern analysis and handwriting, finding it necessary and reliable.

The court declined to heavily redact the co-accused's police statement, opting instead for limiting instructions.

Finally, the court admitted hearsay evidence implicating a third-party suspect under the state of mind exception and the principled approach to hearsay.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and sexual interference, sought to exclude a DVD video from evidence at trial.

The DVD, which likely constituted child pornography, had been in the exclusive possession of the defence but was ordered turned over to the Crown pursuant to the ethical obligations of defence counsel regarding physical evidence of a crime.

The accused argued that allowing the Crown to use the DVD would violate his right against self-incrimination under sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the requirement to turn over the evidence was based on professional ethical obligations to maintain the integrity of the judicial system, not to assist in convicting the accused, and its use by the Crown would not render the trial unfair.

The applicant, charged with attempted murder and witness intimidation, sought a bail review under section 520 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued that the complainant's unreliable testimony at the preliminary hearing constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the complainant's poor testimony was a predictable result of fear and intimidation, and that the Crown still had effective evidentiary tools to present a strong case.

The court held that releasing the applicant would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action was dismissed on consent after it was determined that, as a unionized employee, his claims were governed by a collective agreement and could not be adjudicated in court.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $46,544.75.

The court found the requested costs excessive given the straightforward nature of the jurisdictional issue and the plaintiff's likely impecuniosity.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 all-inclusive.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a loaded firearm following a shooting at a motorcycle club event.

The Crown relied on the hearsay statements of a deceased witness and an absent victim, which the court admitted under the principled exception.

The accused claimed he shot the victim in self-defence and that the bullet hitting the victim was an accident.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding the shooting was intentional, disproportionate, and motivated by animus.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder and the firearm offence, with the aggravated assault charge conditionally stayed.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The total delay to the expected time of trial was approximately 61 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework and deducted periods of defence delay and exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the complainant's pregnancy, a judge's illness, and a mistrial caused primarily by the Crown's failure to provide notice regarding a s. 276 issue.

The net delay was calculated at 23 months, well below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought bail pending his appeal of a sexual assault conviction and a 15-month sentence.

While the applicant met the criteria for showing the appeal was not frivolous and that he would surrender into custody, the court found his detention was necessary in the public interest.

The court noted the applicant's recent diagnoses of severe mental health issues and subsequent charges for attempted murder and assault while on bail.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed, but the court ordered the appeal hearing to be expedited.

The applicants brought an application and a motion for an injunction against their neighbours and the Town of Oakville regarding the construction of a retaining wall between their properties.

The applicants abandoned the injunction motion shortly before the hearing.

At the hearing of the application, the court found that the material facts regarding liability, encroachment, and damages were highly disputed and could not be resolved on a paper record.

The court dismissed the application and ordered the matter to proceed to trial.

The applicants were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs for the abandoned injunction motion.

The accused, charged with historical sexual offences against his son, brought a Mills application for the production of the complainant's counselling records.

The Crown brought a Seaboyer application to adduce evidence of sexual acts involving the complainant and his sister in the accused's presence.

The court dismissed the Mills application, finding the counselling records lacked detail and were not likely relevant.

The court granted the Seaboyer application, ruling that the sexual acts in the accused's presence constituted the subject matter of the charge and were not presumptively excluded under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appellants succeeded on a procedural ground in their appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment regarding unpaid wages.

They sought partial indemnity costs of $12,389.52.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs, finding that the appellants' conduct at trial was frivolous, vexatious, and designed to obstruct the respondent's rightful claim for wages.

The court held that the trial and appeal must be considered as one course of litigation, and the appellants' bad faith conduct justified depriving them of their costs despite their success on appeal.

The accused applied for an adjournment of his sexual offence trial to await a pending Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutionality of Criminal Code provisions regarding the admissibility of complainant records and sexual history.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, citing the significant trial delay that would result and finding that proceeding under the current provisions would not cause irreparable harm or a miscarriage of justice even if the provisions were later struck down.

The applicant, charged with sexual offences, brought a motion challenging the constitutional validity of the Bill C-51 amendments to the Criminal Code regarding the production of personal records and the admissibility of sexual history evidence.

The applicant argued that the definition of 'record' was overbroad, that granting the complainant standing in the admissibility voir dire disrupted the trial balance, and that mandatory disclosure of the application to the complainant violated the right to a fair trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the provisions did not violate sections 7 or 11(d) of the Charter, relying on previous Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence upholding similar protections for complainants' privacy and dignity.

The applicant, Ravinder Kainth, admitted guilt to child luring but sought a stay of proceedings due to police entrapment.

The court found that the police engaged in random virtue testing by posing as a 14-year-old girl on a casual sexual encounter website without prior reasonable suspicion that the applicant was interested in sexual activity with minors.

The court applied the "bright line" test from R. v. Ahmad, concluding that the officer's immediate disclosure of being 14 years old, in the context of the applicant's general sexual ad, constituted an overt opportunity to commit the offence before reasonable suspicion was established.

The court ruled that the police overstepped their bounds, constituting an abuse of process, and stayed the prosecution.

The defendant, Waqar Ali, was sentenced after being found guilty of sexually assaulting two young women and assault causing bodily harm to one.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victims' extreme intoxication and vulnerability, the defendant's predatory behavior as an Uber driver constituting a breach of trust, and the significant impact on the victims.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's lack of prior record, family support, and efforts to address mental health and addiction issues.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation, imposing a total sentence of 18 months and 20 days of incarceration, along with a three-year probation order and other ancillary orders.

The Crown and Peel Regional Police applied for access to a video exhibit previously ordered sealed in a sexual assault and sexual interference prosecution.

The video, likely child pornography, was in defence counsel's possession and had been sealed by a prior court order.

The applicants sought access for investigation and potential use in the prosecution.

The court, relying on R. v. Murray and Rule 5.1-2A of the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct, held that physical evidence documenting a crime, even if it contains both inculpatory and exculpatory elements, must be disclosed to authorities.

The application for access to the sealed exhibit was granted.

Plaintiff Can Duc Diep sought summary judgment against defendant Huong Thi Duong, alleging a fraudulent conveyance of equity from her ex-spouse, co-defendant Hien Cong Pham.

Diep had already obtained judgment against Pham and now sought judgment against Duong for $296,675.

Counsel for Duong raised preliminary objections, arguing the motion was an abuse of process and that a trial would be more efficient.

The court dismissed these preliminary objections, finding no abuse of process and that the motion for full summary judgment was appropriate, ordering the matter to proceed to argument.

The applicant, Brandon Rego, sought a bail review under Section 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing a material change of circumstances due to the weakening of the Crown's intimidation case and a significant COVID-19 outbreak at his correctional facility.

The court found that both developments constituted a material change, opening the door for a full review of the bail decision.

However, despite these changes and the health risks posed by the pandemic, the court ultimately dismissed the application, ordering continued detention on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The judge emphasized the egregious nature of the alleged witness tampering and the applicant's extensive criminal history, concluding that his release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The applicant, charged with firearm offences, applied to vary his bail conditions to delete the house arrest requirement after nearly two years of compliance.

The Crown opposed the variation.

The court recognized the applicant's good track record but noted the seriousness of the charges.

The court crafted a compromise, modifying the house arrest condition to allow the applicant to leave the residence with written permission from his surety, subject to a curfew and other conditions.